Bureaucracy is like a cross between an autoimmune disease and cancer. Like the immune system (though unlike cancer), bureaucracy can be initially useful. But as the immune system or cancer grow beyond control, they start attacking healthy parts of the body politic. And like cancer, bureaucracy feeds itself by robbing the body of resources.
Some time after I finish writing it. (Some time next year?) I have a project that is distracting me, but I will get back to the essays building the book after that project is finished.
I wonder if it´s not the case, that our current level of civilization is simply a matter of population GROWTH. And once we start going in the opposite direction, so will our level of technological advance. We may soon be plowing fields with oxen once again, and nobody will remember what a tractor is, or was. For example, imagine that the entire human population is reduced to those humans found within a hundred mile radius around Melbourne. Would the accumulated knowledge of Melbourne`s human population be enough to assure the survival of accumulated human knowledge? I`m not picking on Melbourne by the way. Could be Bunbury WA.
The failure to advance does not equal technological regression. Though it is true that, at a certain level of population collapse, you do get cascading loss of technological capacity. Trying to work out where the key thresholds are in advance, and doing something about it, can be hard.
I suppose my point is that we tend to take human knowledge for granted simply because it´s written down or recorded - in books, film, vinyl records, digital archives, encyclopedia Britannica, etc.. But what if that´s not true? What if it depends on a kind of human population DENSITY, which must constantly expand in order to make value of human knowledge? I got this idea from observing chickens. The more chickens I had, the more they seem to "invent" things for chicken life.
There is a reason most things invented between c.500BC and c.1400 were first invented in China. You definitely need networks of a certain density. (Before c.500BC it was the Fertile Crescent, after c.1400 it is Europe and the wider West.) The USA is the only large population state in the top per capita GDP countries because of the density and functionality of its networks. It (50%) and China (40%) cover about 90% of world venture capital. (Which just shows how badly the EU is doing.) So, there is definitely something to your point.
Bureaucracy is like a cross between an autoimmune disease and cancer. Like the immune system (though unlike cancer), bureaucracy can be initially useful. But as the immune system or cancer grow beyond control, they start attacking healthy parts of the body politic. And like cancer, bureaucracy feeds itself by robbing the body of resources.
Nicely put.
When will your book with Helen be published?
Some time after I finish writing it. (Some time next year?) I have a project that is distracting me, but I will get back to the essays building the book after that project is finished.
I wonder if it´s not the case, that our current level of civilization is simply a matter of population GROWTH. And once we start going in the opposite direction, so will our level of technological advance. We may soon be plowing fields with oxen once again, and nobody will remember what a tractor is, or was. For example, imagine that the entire human population is reduced to those humans found within a hundred mile radius around Melbourne. Would the accumulated knowledge of Melbourne`s human population be enough to assure the survival of accumulated human knowledge? I`m not picking on Melbourne by the way. Could be Bunbury WA.
The failure to advance does not equal technological regression. Though it is true that, at a certain level of population collapse, you do get cascading loss of technological capacity. Trying to work out where the key thresholds are in advance, and doing something about it, can be hard.
I suppose my point is that we tend to take human knowledge for granted simply because it´s written down or recorded - in books, film, vinyl records, digital archives, encyclopedia Britannica, etc.. But what if that´s not true? What if it depends on a kind of human population DENSITY, which must constantly expand in order to make value of human knowledge? I got this idea from observing chickens. The more chickens I had, the more they seem to "invent" things for chicken life.
There is a reason most things invented between c.500BC and c.1400 were first invented in China. You definitely need networks of a certain density. (Before c.500BC it was the Fertile Crescent, after c.1400 it is Europe and the wider West.) The USA is the only large population state in the top per capita GDP countries because of the density and functionality of its networks. It (50%) and China (40%) cover about 90% of world venture capital. (Which just shows how badly the EU is doing.) So, there is definitely something to your point.